JUDGMENT : C.S. DIAS, J. The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P6 notice issued by the 4 th respondent, Ext.P7 decision of the 2 nd respondent and Ext.P8 letter issued by the Secretary of the 2 nd respondent to the 4 th respondent. 2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 4.05 Ares and 0.60 Ares of land comprised in Resurvey Nos.64/6-2-2 and 64/3-2 in Kumbalam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, covered under Exts.P1 and P2 land tax receipts and situated within the territorial limits of the 3 rd respondent – Panchayat. The petitioner had submitted an application for building permit before the 4 th respondent on 26.02.2020, to construct a residential building in the said property. The application was duly processed by the 4 th respondent and Ext.P4 site approval and building permit were issued. Accordingly, the petitioner constructed the building and remitted the cess, and submitted an application to issue the occupancy certificate. However, by Ext.P6 notice, the 4 th respondent informed the petitioner that his application is rejected on the ground that the 2 nd respondent – Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority – had declined to grant CRZ clearance. The action of the 4 th respondent in rejecting the application is illegal because it is the 3 rd respondent who is the authority to consider the petitioner’s application for occupancy certificate. The petitioner’s application was rejected by the 2 nd respondent as per Ext.P7 decision, which was taken without issuing any notice to the petitioner or affording him an opportunity of being heard. Ext.P7 decision was communicated to the 4 th respondent by Ext.P8 letter. Although the petitioner’s property was initially categorized under the CRZ I-A as per the Coastal Regulation Zone Map, 2011,(‘Map’ in short) the same was superseded by the Map prepared under the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification , 2019, which was notified on 16.10.2024. Majority of the petitioner’s property does not fall within the ambit of the notification. The petitioner has constructed the building in the permissible area. Furthermore, the property does not share boundaries with any water body. As the property falls to the landward side of a Panchayat road, where residential buildings are already constructed, there is no necessity to refer the matter to the Coastal Zone Management Authority ( for brevity (‘CZMA’). The petitioner has constructed the building in the permissible area. Furthermore, the property does not share boundaries with any water body. As the property falls to the landward side of a Panchayat road, where residential buildings are already constructed, there is no necessity to refer the matter to the Coastal Zone Management Authority ( for brevity (‘CZMA’). The 2019 notification also permits the local authorities to approve self-dwelling units having a plinth area of 300 square meter built-up-area, without requiring clearance from the CZMA, subject to the compliance with local CRZ norms. The petitioner’s building has a built-up-area of 288.7 sq.m, which squarely falls within the exemption. Therefore, Exts.P6 to P8 are illegal and arbitrary and are liable to be quashed. 3. In the counter affidavit filed, the 1 st respondent has stated that, the Plan, 2019 was notified on 16.10.2024. CRZ-II areas consists of developed land close to the shoreline within municipal limits, including drainage systems, roads and other infrastructure. In CRZ- II areas, construction of buildings for residential purposes, shall be permitted only on the landward side of the existing road or the landward side of existing authorized fixed structures. Likewise, the 2019 notification permits self-dwelling units upto total built-up- area of 300 square meters, but the approval of the local authority is required, without the requirement of recommendation of the concerned CZMA. 4. In the statement filed by the respondents 3 and 4, they have admitted that Ext.P4 site approval and building permit were issued after conducting inspection of the petitioner’s property. As per the plan, the plinth area of the building comes to 259.59 square meters. On receipt of the application, the matter was forwarded to the Assistant Engineer, LSGD, who had verified the plan and found it to be in consonance with Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 (‘KPB’ Rules) and the 2011 Map. Even though the Overseer had reported that the plan does not satisfy Rule 6(3) and 76(2) of KPB Rules, it was reported that the property will not come under the CRZ zone. The building permit was issued after being satisfied that the property is situated beyond 50 meters from the tidal influenced water body. After the construction, the petitioner submitted an application for occupancy certificate. The building permit was issued after being satisfied that the property is situated beyond 50 meters from the tidal influenced water body. After the construction, the petitioner submitted an application for occupancy certificate. In the inspection that was conducted, it was found that the property comes under the CRZ II and necessary action had to be taken as per CZMP, 2019. As per the CZMP 2019, the petitioner’s property is situated in Survey No.64 and is not included in the CRZ. As per the 2011 Plan, the plot was under CRZ-1B. But, in the site inspection, it was found that the plot comes under CRZ - 1A. Though, Pokkali fields were so entered in the 2019 Plan, Resurvey No.64, in which the plot lies, is excluded from inter-tidal and CRZ limits. When the building permit was issued, it was reported by the Engineering wing that the plot of the petitioner does not come within the CRZ area. As the Overseer had reported that the plot comes under the CRZ II and for clarifying the confusion, the matter was forwarded to the 2 nd respondent for their concurrence. When the 2 nd respondent reported that the property falls under the CRZ-1A, the Panchayat had no option but to deny the occupancy certificate. The approved plan as well as the completion plan does not violate the KPB Rules. Moreover, as per order dated 06.12.2024 of the KCZMA, the 3 rd respondent – Panchayat is included in the CRZ II category. As per the notification, if the property is situated beyond 50 meters from the tidal influenced water body and the plinth area does not exceed 300 square meters, no permission is required from the 2 nd respondent. 5. Heard; the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned DSGI appearing for the 1 st respondent and respective Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2, 3 and 4. 6. Indisputably, the petitioner has constructed the residential building based on Ext.P4 site approval and building permit. However, the petitioner’s application for occupancy certificate was forwarded by the 4 th respondent to the 2 nd respondent to obtain the CRZ clearance, which was declined by Ext.P7 decision. 7. 6. Indisputably, the petitioner has constructed the residential building based on Ext.P4 site approval and building permit. However, the petitioner’s application for occupancy certificate was forwarded by the 4 th respondent to the 2 nd respondent to obtain the CRZ clearance, which was declined by Ext.P7 decision. 7. Be that as it may, now, it is not in dispute that the petitioner’s residential building has a plinth area of less than 300 square meters, and that the 2 nd respondent Panchayat is included in the CRZ II category, and further, as per the 2019 Plan, no permission is required from the 2 nd respondent. 8. In light of the emphatic statements of the made by respondents 3 and 4 in their statement and the counter affidavit of the 1 st respondent that in CRZ II areas, there is no necessity to obtain permission from the 2 nd respondent to construct a residential building not exceeding a plinth area of 300 square meters, I am of the definite view that Ext.P6 notice, Ext.P7 decision and Ext.P8 letter are erroneous and liable to be quashed. In the afore-said circumstances, I allow the writ petition, by quashing Exts.P6 to P8 , so far as it relates to the petitioner’s application for occupancy certificate, and direct the 4 th respondent to process the petitioner’s application for occupancy certificate, in accordance with law and expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 30 days from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.